Lucy-Anne Holmes, founder of the No More Page 3 campaign. Photograph: Graeme Robertson

Almost a year ago, I suggested doing a short interview with the founder of a new campaign to end topless images of women on The Sun's Page 3. A colleague had a fair question. How would this campaign be any different from the others? After all, many had argued strongly against these images since they began on November 17 1970 – from the Labour MP Clare Short in the 1980s to the more recent, equally committed activists of the Turn Your Back on Page 3 campaign.

But something about this attempt did feel different. It was timing, partly, and personality. There was the ardent campaigner who was heading up No More Page 3, Lucy-Anne Holmes, an actor and author of romantic comedy novels, who clearly felt passionate about the cause. There was the way the campaign phrased itself, asking the then-editor of the Sun, Dominic Mohan, to kindly remove the images – an approach that addressed some of the usual and proper concerns about free speech. There was no talk of a ban here, just a polite appeal to obvious arguments. The most simple and convincing of which was this: how could it be, in the 21st century, that the most prominent image of a woman in a British newspaper each day was a teenager or twentysomething posing in her pants? The Sun, after all, is by far the country's biggest-selling paper.

The campaign started riding the crest of a resurgent feminist movement, which has a growing dexterity with online activism – I first heard about No More Page 3 on Twitter, before reading more in the Huffington Post by feminist writer and campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez. When I spoke to Holmes, she described how Page 3 had prompted negative feelings about her body as a teenager, and how disappointed she'd been to see a topless image in the paper on the day women athletes, including Victoria Pendleton and Jessica Ennis, were celebrated for Olympic victories. "I just think that in 1970 a group of men in a male-managed media, in a male-managed country, decided to put the naked breasts of young women in the newspaper, and in 2012, hopefully, we're a different society," she said. "Shouldn't we look at that decision again?"

Still, there have been interesting developments over the past few months. In late June, the element of Page 3 some found most offensive was dropped. Not the naked breasts, but News in Briefs. This bubble, which appeared beside the head of the Page 3 model, purporting to express her thoughts on political issues and current affairs, had long been seen as a nasty little mockery, a joke at the idea that beautiful young women can have intelligent opinions. Then, earlier this month, the editor of The Sun's Irish edition announced he was dropping bare-breasted images. "Page 3 is a hugely popular pillar of the Sun in the UK," he wrote, before going on to say the Irish Sun strives "to cater for our own readers' needs and reflect the cultural differences in Ireland".

The campaign has clearly put the page and its influence on the agenda, but they could still have a long battle ahead. Their petition is now addressed to David Dinsmore, who took over from Mohan as Sun editor in June, and who quickly clarified that Page 3 was here to stay. "We did a survey last year," he told BBC Radio 5 Live, "and found that two thirds of our readers wanted to keep Page 3. What you find is people who are against Page 3 have never read the Sun and would never read the Sun." So he is apparently yet to be convinced by a clutch of business arguments, made in February by Greenslade.

For one, the paper's Saturday edition, which doesn't feature a topless image, is the biggest-selling issue of the week by far. And then there's the Sun on Sunday, which has also established itself as the best seller in its field without resorting to a Page 3 model. And, while The Sun's website was attracting around 30 million unique visitors a month in early 2013, its separate, standalone Page 3 site was only attracting 1.4 million. (Now, since the beginning of August, The Sun's digital offering has been rebranded and it has gone behind a paywall).

The campaigners seem prepared for the long game. In June, Green MP Caroline Lucas wore a No More Page 3 T-shirt at a Commons debate – there was much ironic laughter when she was instructed to cover it up – and suggested the pressure would continue. "To date," she said, "public pressure has secured the most public sign from The Sun's proprietor that the paper might scrap Page 3. But the clock is ticking and we still have not seen any concrete action. So if Page 3 still hasn't been removed from The Sun by the end of this year, I think we should be asking the government to step in and legislate." I suspect those who signed the petition would much rather Dinsmore responded to a polite request than anything more draconian. But a year after the campaign started, is there any argument that could convince him?